Physical activity estimated by osteogenic potential and energy expenditure has differing associations with bone mass in young adults: the raine study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Summary Ground impacts during physical activity may be important for peak bone mass. We found differences in how energy expenditure and impact scores estimated from a physical activity questionnaire related to bone health in young adults. Using both estimate types can improve our understanding of the skeletal benefits of physical activity. Purpose It is unclear whether mechanical loading during physical activity, estimated from physical activity questionnaires which assess metabolic equivalents of task (METs), is associated with skeletal health. This longitudinal study investigated how physical activity loading scores, assessed at ages 17 and 20 years, (a) compares with physical activity measured in METs, and (b) is associated with bone mass at age 20 years. Methods A total of 826 participants from the Raine Study Gen2 were assessed for physical activity energy expenditure via the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) at age 17 and 20 years. Loading scores (the product of peak force and application rate) per week were subsequently estimated from the IPAQ. Whole-body and appendicular bone mineral density (BMD) at age 20 years were assessed by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry. Results Bland–Altman minimal detectable difference for physical activity Z- scores at age 17 and 20 years were 1.59 standard deviations (SDs) and 1.33 SDs, respectively, greater than the a priori minimal clinically important change of 0.5 SDs. Loading score, but not IPAQ score, had significant positive associations with whole-body and leg BMD after adjustment for covariates (β = 0.008 and 0.012 g/cm2, respectively, for age 17 and 20 years loading scores). IPAQ score at age 20 years, but not loading score, had a significant positive association with arm BMD (β = 0.007 g/cm2). Conclusion This study revealed disagreement in associations of self-reported METs and loading score estimates with bone health in young adults. Coupling traditional energy expenditure questionnaire outcomes with bone-loading estimates may improve understanding of the location-specific skeletal benefits of physical activity in young adults.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".